his time, says: "That the most notorious vices were screened under that name; and that they did not maintain the character by virtue and study, but concealed very vicious lives under an austere look, and a habit different from the rest of mankind." The inbred superiority of reason, then, however well calculated it may be to amuse, is by no means fitted to direct the conduct of men in the paths of virtue. Cicero, speaking of this guide, so much extolled by modern infidels, and considering it, as it always ought to be considered, as opposed by corrupt lives and perverse opinions, asserts, that the true light of nature is no where to be found; and he adds, that "there are in our minds the seeds of virtue, by which nature would conduct us to happiness, if they were allowed to grow up. But now, no sooner are we born, but we fall into a wretched depravity and corruption of manners and opinions." Of this corruption, however, the existence. of which they saw, and the effects of which they sometimes lament, they knew not the cause; and they could find no cure for it, nor could they oppose any effectual resistance to it. Besides, had their principles been ever so' pure and effectual, they had not the means of disseminating them among the bulk of the people. Their pupils were from among the learned, the rich, the noble, and the illustrious. If the poor had been able to comprehend them, they had no way of S

becoming acquainted with them. The phi losophers were few in number, and their disciples were of course confined. Yet it must be granted, by all who believe in a God, and consequently in the necessity of some religion, that the soul of a peasant is as valuable in his sight as that of a prince; the salvation of an ignorant mechanic, as that of an enlightened philosopher; and yet of these, the sages of antiquity took no charge; nor has any system of religion, the Jewish and Christian alone excepted, appeared in the world level to their capacities, or adapted to their necessities.

"Of Confucius and his principles, so highly celebrated by our two learned authors, I know but little; nor can I discover among his laws any which, in a religious view, deserve to be preferred, or even to be compared, to those of Christianity, A noble author, (Baron Haller) whose testimony is at least of equal credit with that of Dr F. and Mr M., says of him, that he wanted a greater degree of fervency; his doctrine was capable of rendering the people obedient to the laws of Emperors, but not to those of God; it might make them citizens, but not truly pious; it might give to its disciples the appearance of virtue or wisdom, but could not render them really good.' Of the immortality of the soul, this celebrated wise man had no idea; and his philosophy,. instead of morality, teaches us only political duty, or a morality merely subservient to

the ends of government. He speaks of God as a pure and perfect principle, and is said to have prohibited idolatry. But if he did so, the prohibition is certainly disregarded; for temples and images have been erected to himself; and he is worshipped as a god with the profoundest adoration. His system, which is the second of the three prevailing in China, is confined to the learned. The first sect is that of the followers of Li Laokum, who is said to have flourished more than 500 years before Christ. He taught that God was corporeal, and had many inferior deities under his government. But the most numerous sect is that of those who worship the idol Fo or Fohi, whom they stile the only god of the world, and who was imported into India about 32 years after the death of our Saviour. With respect to the principles of the Chinese people at large, we learn from Le Compte and Duhald, that, after having offered largely to their gods, if disappointed of their assistance, they sue them for damages, and ob-tain decrees against them from the Mandarins. When their houses are on fire, they hold their gods, which are of wood and of their own making, to the flames, in hopes of stopping their progress. Are these the people whose principles we ought to adopt, or whose conduct it would be wise to imitate? The general declamation on the chaIacter of Confucius and of the Chinese,

which it is more than probable our two authors take upon trust, might have answered some purpose, had they followed it up with a minute investigation of the subject, and an accurate comparison between the principles of the philosopher, and those which we esteem divine. But such an enquiry did not suit their purpose, which seems to have been merely to heap up objections, without considering their nature, their force, their tendency, or even their truth.

"The result of the whole matter, then, is, that, notwithstanding the praises so lavishly bestowed on natural reason, it has been proved, by a long experience, to be totally unfit either to lead men to truth, or to restrain them within the bounds of rectitude, that, in every age and climate, when furnished with no higher guide, the learned and the ignorant, the high and the low, the rich and the poor, roving barbarians, and the more enlightened members of cultivated society, have been alike overwhelmed with doubts and difficulties, alike unable to discover the truth, or to apply what they did know to practice, and alike subject to vices degrading to the human character, and injurious to themselves and to society. The same ignorance and corruption which disgraced the Pagan nations of antiquity, overwhelm those of our day. In that state of society in which reason is not fully exerted, little can be expected; but even

"

where its progress has been most distinguished, we can find no instance of those salutary effects, which our opponents contend it is so well calculated to produce. What inference ought we to draw from a fact so universally and indisputably proved? The only conclusion which a wise man can make from such premises, is,-that, for whatever purpose reason was conferred upon us, we do not find it calculated to guide us of itself, in our most important concerns, either to truth or virtue; and it therefore becomes our duty seriously and patiently to enquire, if haply we may find a guide more sure and certain. On the natural and proper mode of making such an enquiry, I have already spoken at considerable length; and I followed up my remarks, by tracing the outlines of those steps by which we conclude that the Jewish and Christian Revelations are what they pretend to be. Dr Francis and Mr Macleod take a very different method, and come to a very different conclusion; and as they are philosophers of unparalleled eminence and candour, we shall give their rea soning, if such it can be called, a cursory. examination.I say, if such it can be called; for, if they had not talked so much of reason, philosophy, and logic, I should have deemed them totally ignorant of them; and should have conceived their books to be a collection of impertinent dogmas, founded.